Pre-election political spin has been with us for eons. But
post-election spin is becoming more common. Certainly, this was
evident following Labor's convincing victory over the Coalition in
the NSW election on Saturday.

First up, the Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, said the result
was "really healthy" and amounted to a "consolidation" for the
Coalition. Well, the Liberals and Nationals are destined to remain
in Opposition for at least four years, so there was a certain kind
of consolidation involved.

However, it is difficult to reconcile Debnam's interpretation
with the fact that under his leadership the Coalition achieved a
swing of only about 3 per cent and the Liberal Party probably will
not win even one seat from Labor.

Next, the Premier, Morris Iemma, said the Howard Government's
Work Choices law was a key factor in Labor's victory. He said Work
Choices was "a piece of legislation workers and families hate" and
that "there is a clear message to Canberra and they will ignore it
at their peril". Iemma's ability to lead an unpopular government to
its fourth victory in a row was remarkable. So why is he
maintaining that a significant reason for its success can be
sheeted home to the unpopularity of the Federal Government's
industrial relations legislation?

It seems Iemma wants to reward the union movement for its strong
support, both financial and in terms of personnel, in the election.
Then there is loyalty to the cause. Unions would survive a federal
Coalition victory in late 2007. However, their influence would be
substantially - perhaps even permanently - diminished. In other
words, many union officials regard 2007 as their last stand.

Iemma has degrees in economics and law, but he is essentially a
political apparatchik. He is a member of the NSW Labor right-wing
machine and has a background as a union official and political
staffer (to the one-time ALP heavyweight Graham Richardson). Quite
a few Liberals tend to dismiss Labor MPs who have worked as union
officials and/or political staffers. Yet Iemma's victory shows the
importance of political experience in successful campaigns. The
Liberals, especially at state level, have much to learn from Labor
in this regard.

Iemma knows Labor's long-term political future is dependent on a
viable union movement. So he was happy to attribute much of his
success to an alleged reaction against the Howard Government's Work
Choices legislation.

That's Labor's line. And Iemma is running it strongly, supported
by the federal Deputy Opposition Leader, Julia Gillard, and many
others. The question turns on to what extent the line is consistent
with what happened at the state election.

There is some, just some, evidence to support Iemma's thesis. A
Herald/AC Nielsen poll, published last Friday, found that 18
per cent of those surveyed described industrial relations as the
most important issue in the NSW election campaign. An exit poll,
conducted for Unions NSW on election day in nine Labor-held
marginal seats, found that industrial relations was a decisive or
significant factor in the decision of more than 60 per cent of
electors who voted Labor. Even so, Labor lost one of these seats to
the Nationals.

On Sunday, Iemma said people were approaching him at polling
booths in Miranda, saying they were voting Labor in protest at Work
Choices. True, no doubt. But there was a significant swing to the
Coalition in Miranda.

There is little doubt the campaign against Work Choices, run by
the ACTU with the support of Labor, has been successful. This is
despite the fact that over the past year about 250,000 jobs were
created, real wages increased and industrial disputes were at their
lowest levels since records were introduced just before World War
I.

The ACTU campaign enjoys the support of many journalists and
academics who cover industrial relations. Yesterday, for example,
there was widescale coverage in the media of a report on Work
Choices written by the Griffith University academic David Peetz. In
fact, Peetz has long been an opponent of industrial relations
reform. For example, on ABC radio's Perspective program in
January last year he bagged what he termed "the push to
individualisation in employment relations" and alleged that this
was "driven by people with power" in business and the Liberal
Party. This conveniently overlooked the fact that Paul Keating's
Labor government was the first to decentralise the labour
market.

It is far from clear how the industrial relations issue will
play in the federal election. Work Choices is unpopular in sections
of the electorate. However, unemployment is at historic lows and
workplace agreements are prevalent throughout Australia -
particularly in booming states such as Western Australia. Moreover,
the Coalition's abolition of so-called unfair dismissal laws, in so
far as they affect small business, has strong support among
employers and independent contractors in suburban and regional
Australia, where the next election will be decided.

Despite the spin, Work Choices was not a determining factor in
NSW on Saturday. Who knows? If the Liberal Party had been led by
Barry O'Farrell, rather than Debnam, it might have won, with or
without Work Choices. No spin.

6040http://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/ir-critical-to-iemma-win-conroy/2007/03/25/1174761272395.htmlIR 'critical' to Iemma win: Conroytext/html-documenthttp://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/was-iemmas-win-a-vote-against-workchoices/2007/03/25/1174761255579.htmlWas Iemma's win a vote against Workchoices?text/html-documenthttp://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/unions-crow-at-blow-to-howard/2007/03/25/1174761283933.htmlUnions crow at blow to Howardtext/html-documenthttp://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/message-to-howard-from-election--be-afraid-but-not-very-afraid/2007/03/25/1174761283915.htmlMessage to Howard from election - be afraid, but not very afraidtext/html-documenthttp://www.smh.com.au/news/state-election-2007/libs-worst-nightmare/2007/03/25/1174761284791.htmlLibs' worst nightmaretext/html-document